best film: Pierrot le Fou from Godard. Godard’s most innovative work to date in 1965 and the one most likely to give pause when selecting Breathless as his single finest film. It is self-conscious, self-mocking and a brilliant deconstruction of the artform and gangster genre. It’s more than that though because, unlike later Godard (post-Weekend), it is visually stunning. Yes, it’s narrative anarchy, but it’s eye-poppingly vivid and watchable.

bold color splashes from Godard

rebellion from Godard– from their debuts on, you can actually see Truffaut getting more conservative as Godard is breaking away

postmodern — ripping apart genres, capitalism, narrative convention — just a few of the targets

in 1965 Godard is still intentional in his design
most underrated: There are three contenders here- Lumet’s The Hill can’t find its way onto the consensus TSPDT top 1000 (it is at #2738). That’s one of the biggest discrepancies I have with the entire list. Close behind that I have Juliet of the Spirits from Fellini. Juliet is safely in my top 100 and TSPDT has it at #949. I’m at a loss there. Maybe it is the expectations of following up La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2. Most critics somehow think of both films as flawed works or even missteps for Fellini and Lumet. These two films are not “minor” or “lessor” anything. The third and final contender for most underrated is The Ipcress File. It is the very rare—non-auteur masterpiece (and isn’t in the TSPDT top 2000 either). It actually has a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes- but if you read through most of the praise—the praise is directed towards the intelligent (albeit dense) adaptation and narrative from of Len Deighton’s source material or/and the acting work from relative newcomer (this is before Alfie but after Zulu) Michael Caine as Harry Palmer. Both of those aspects of the film deserve praise for sure—but these are mere pats on the head. Upon closer examination— there is much more to see here from Sidney Furie and DP Otto Heller- neither have very impressive filmographies (Heller shot Peeping Tom in 1960 with Powell) but this here- The Ipcress File– seems to be a one-off display of absolutely brilliant cinematic visual filmmaking (and certainly submarines the auteur theory a little- haha). Furie takes the idea of surveillance in his use of blocking objects in the frame and wild camera angles and positions. Big brother dystopian camera angles is something Gilliam does so well in Brazil (which is two decades later) and All the President’s Men does this famously in 1976—but Furie’s camera placement, character and object blocking are breathtaking here- rare air as far as the achievement in visual style. This is Antonioni meets Kurosawa. This is the first of three in a trio of adaptations from Len Deighton’s books- Caine would star again as Palmer in Funeral in Berlin (1966) and Billion Dollar Brain (1967- and neither directed by Furie). Harry Palmer is akin to James Bond—and it is worth noting that you’d get Caine and Connery together in 1975’s The Man Who Would Be King as a sort of Cold War spy agents Batman vs. Superman – but with all due respect to 007- I’m not sure any one Bond film hits the cinematic high-water mark The Ipcress File does.

The Hill — uncompromising– one of the great works from both Lumet and Connery

Fellini’s first foray away from black and white — and still one of cinema’s best uses of color

Nino Rota the score- the costume and set decoration from Piero Gherardi

Fellini uses the changes in elevation like a painter here

from The Ipcress File – there’s another of Green shot through the door just barely open enough. Antonioni would do this with windows- or a building swallowing up Moreau in La Notte (predating Ipcress) or the secretary blocked off by the obtrusive wall in Zabriskie Point (which in this case is after Ipcress File)…..50 or more of these creative surveillance shots

The single best shot may be the shot of Green with 75% of the screen blocked by the red lampshade with Green on the far left—just a wow
most overrated: I have a Godard study planned shortly so I hope I’ll soon be regretting even mentioning this but for now Alphaville at #523 on the consensus list makes me scratch my head. Ultimately, it is Bunuel’s work that gets the choice here though. I don’t fully understand the love for Simon of the Desert (#912 on TSPDT). There are some decent ideas there, but it’s truncated and half-baked. Bunuel didn’t even finish the film and it comes in at 43 minutes.
gem I want to spotlight: Le Bonheur from Agnes Varda
- Varda’s third feature after La Pointe Courte and Cleo From 5 to 7– she goes a resounding 3 for 3 here- one of the most promising starts to any auteur’s career
- Gorgeous 35mm color photography (her first in color)- she fills her frames color, floral décor
- Uses 3 dp’s, 2 editors—so yeah- it is Varda here who is the genius

stunning sunflower shot opening credit sequence…

… which bookends nicely with the final shot
- Mozart perfectly fits—starts with an idyllic Day in the Country- Renoir-like Father’s day—hokey– this is a damning criticism of a male-centric world
- So stylistically and formally well-done—fading to colors in editing- beautiful
- Patterned dresses, primary color’s galore—colored trucks passing in the frames, over the top advertising part of her complex mise-en-scene— it’s Demy (in the same period as him) or Contempt from Godard. Same year as Pierrot from him and Juliet of the Spirits from Fellini– fantastic experimentation in color in 1965
- The foliage drapes the frames
- The husband is a smiling devil (nice, patient, annoyingly self-centered—those nature metaphors crack me up)—mimics the husband on television in a great critical shot society
- Varda is throwing 100mph—making choices stylistically- she oscillates the camera between the tree as her protagonist is dancing with wife and then alternately with girlfriend

Beautiful montage of still frame photographs shaping the body with the blonde in bed
- A feat of editing, mise-en-scene, and color
- Repeat edit 5X upon her death in a nice sequence– Scorsese borrows this often (obviously no Scorsese in 1965 yet) and Varda first uses this in Cleo
- Far from the touches of neo-realism in La Pointe Courte, parts of Cleo– and Vagabond to follow in 1985 which is Varda’s most neo-realistic and frankly least beautiful film
- Haunting final shot of the new family, dressed the same– like out of an advertisement, going into the forest— fade to yellow (like Marnie did in 1964)
trends and notables:
- Breathless in 1960, Godard’s debut, may technically be his peak—but we’re smack the middle of the Godard avalanche here—it is almost overwhelming. Alphaville and Pierrot in 1965 makes for seven archiveable films in six years including three masterpieces

The Sound of Music from Robert Wise starring Julie Andrews is a bonanza at the box office- it is the single biggest box office hit of the 1960’s decade
- Juliet of the Spirits is a notable artistic first for Fellini as it’s his first color film—supremely creative- talk about pushing the envelope
- I mention it above but Varda is sort of the new Dreyer (or at least she starts that way) in that she has a long time off between films- but they’re all sublime. Tarkovsky is another potential heir apparent too. Her films were released in 1955, 1962, and 1965—MS, MS/MP, and MS to start the career for Varda
- Bergman—the story here is Bergman has nothing made or in the archives in 1965. That’s how good he is- it is a story. It is worth observing because for the first time since 1951 we have back to back years with no archiveable films (1964 and 1965) from Bergman- that’ll be remedied in a big way in 1966 of course with Persona
- First archiveable film for Milos Forman—beginning of the Czech New Wave– Loves of a Blonde – get used to the “New Wave” thing as a saying (hahaha) when a country has multiple auteurs that are among the best in the world at the same time
- James Ivory has his first archiveable film with Shakespeare-Wallah -his producer Ismail Merchant and writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala are part of the collaboration—what’s most interesting about Ivory is just how long it would take for his best work to come. The peak Merchant/Ivory films are from 1985-1993– some twenty years after his first archiveable film
- Tony Richardson is on fire in this era- this is his sixth archiveable film since 1959—and how about the great character actor George Kenney with four archiveable films in one year (Mirage, The Sons of Katie Elders, In Harm’s Way, The Flight of the Phoenix)
- We have firsts from Jane Fonda– she is great in Cat Ballou. She’d go on to be a top tier actress for the remainder of the decade and the 1970’s. We also have the first archiveable films from the luminous Julie Christie- more on Christie below

Leone is back with the second entry in his unofficial Man with No Name trilogy

stunning pair of shots here
best performance male It is actually a weaker year here compared to so many in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. There are four actors I want to spotlight and really only two vying fort the top spot. Ultimately Jean-Paul Belmondo walks away with the best male performance of the year for yet another collaboration with Godard (and this time with Anna Karina). He’s cool, charming, arrogant and completely free-swinging. There dozens of winks at the camera—reflexive—and the film includes long periods of improvising and even reading aloud from a book. It’s Belmondo and impossible to think of anyone else in the role. I was very close to picking Sean Connery’s best career performance in Lumet’s The Hill here as well- he’s second only to Belmondo. Connery’s performance is like the film- tough as nails- punishing. Michael Caine is here for The Ipcress File as spy Harry Palmer– a rich character– an early feather in the cap for the legendary actor. The last mention is for Orson Welles, directing himself again in Chimes at Midnight. It’s odd, if you just asked me if Welles was a talented actor I’d probably say “no”- but he wins you over (as the role and film calls for) as Falstaff. And with Citizen Kane and Touch of Evil he is no stranger to this category over the years.

Welles’ last great triumph– both in front of and behind the camera in Chimes at Midnight
best performance female: For the third time in twelve years, Giulietta Masina leads the pack in the category, this time for Juliet of the Spirits. She is only an eyelash better than three other awe-inspiring actresses in 1965. It is certainly a stronger year for the female performances than their male counterparts. Edged out barely by Masina are Deneuve (Repulsion), Karina (Pierrott le Fou), and Julie Christie (Doctor Zhivago, Darling). Deneuve and Karina were both on the list in 1964 as well—I’m especially impressed with young Deneuve going from a candy-colored musical with Demy to an austere, nearly silent black and white psychological thriller/horror with Polanski. And what a year for Christie! She won the Academy Award for Darling and she’s very good there– but she’s even better in Doctor Zhivago. David Lean did exactly what he did with the casting in Lawrence of Arabia with Peter O’Toole here with Christie.

a great frame from Repulsion— a film that confirmed the talents of both Polanski and Deneuve after Knife in the Water and Umbrellas of Cherbourg

a shot repeated often in different variations throughout
top 10
- Pierrot le Fou
- Juliet of the Spirits
- Repulsion
- The Ipcress File
- The Hill
- Doctor Zhivago
- For a Few Dollars More
- Le Bonheur
- Chimes at Midnight
- Red Beard

Red Beard– The end of an era for Kurosawa- his last film in black and white, his last film (sixteen total I believe) with Mifune, and last film of the 1960’s (it is my understanding there were a number of projects that never came to fruition for whatever reason in the back half of the decade)

Since 1958’s The Hidden Fortress and every film since (a fertile artistic period, even for Kurosawa)- each has the superwide 2.35 : 1 Tohoschop aspect ratio and Kurosawa knows exactly how to design the entire frame

At 24 minutes- a gorgeous frame- a crooked tree dividing the frame of the young doctor and girl

in Doctor Zhivago David Lean did with snow what he did with sand in the desert in Lawrence of Arabia

Lean’s perfectionism gets misconstrued and wrongly interpreted — as if he lacked for artistry

from Griffith to Nolan — it is is impossible to talk about ambition, scale and scope without dedicating plenty of time to discuss David Lean

Welles’ obstructing the frame in Chimes at Midnight

almost impossibly beautiful lighting in the cathedral

Welles’ trademark use of low-angles, ceiling as mise-en-scene here
Archives, Directors, and Grades
A Patch of Blue- Green | R |
A Thousand Clowns- Coe | R |
Alphaville- Godard | R |
Bunny Lake is Missing- Preminger | R |
Cat Ballou- Silverstein | R |
Chimes at Midnight – Welles | MS |
Darling- Schlesinger | R |
Doctor Zhivago- Lean | MS/MP |
Fist In the Pocket – Bellocchio | R |
For a Few Dollars More- Leone | MS |
In Harm’s Way- Preminger | R |
Juliet of the Spirits- Fellini | MP |
Le Bonheur – Varda | MS |
Loves of a Blonde- Forman | |
Mickey One- Penn | R |
Mirage-Dmytryk | R |
Morituri – Wicki | |
Operation Crossbow- M. Anderson | R |
Othello- Burge | R |
Pierrot le Fou- Godard | MP |
Red Beard – Kurosawa | HR |
Repulsion- Polanski | MP |
Shakespeare-Wallah – Ivory | R |
Ship of Fools- Kramer | R |
Simon of the Desert- Bunuel | R |
The Agony and the Ecstasy- C. Reed | R |
The Cincinnati Kid – Jewison | R |
The Collector- Wyler | R |
The Flight of the Phoenix- Aldrich | R |
The Great Race- Edwards | R |
The Hill- Lumet | MS/MP |
The Ipcress File – Furie | MP |
The Knack… and How to Get It – Lester | R |
The Loved One- Richardson | |
The Nanny – Holt | R |
The Sons of Katie Elders- Hathaway | R |
The Sound of Music- Wise | HR |
The Spy Who Came In From the Cold- Ritt | |
Thunderball – Young | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-See- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
So I have now completed all 16 of the Kurosawa/Mifune films… just an incomparably brilliant collaboration. I will comment on each film as you go (as I have been doing) but after watching Red Beard last night I am compelled for the third time (interestingly each time for a 1960s film) to jump the queue. I saw Red Beard 16 or 17 years ago, on a cruddy DVD copy from our college library, on a 4:3 tube TV… and I have to assume that your history with it is the same (except substituting one of your legendary VHS copies for the DVD) because I can think of no other explanation for how we have not discussed this film before. In Japan it is regarded as Kurosawa’s magnum opus, while Western critics (with a few prominent exceptions) have derided it as a soap opera. Well all I can say to that is to hell with the West. Ebert was one of those prominent exceptions and his Great Movies review gives the impression that it and Ikiru were his favourites. I don’t know how much to say before you get to it other than that I am rocked to my core and nothing will ever quite be the same again. It may be the most compositionally perfect film I have ever seen, and I’ll have to rewatch Ikiru to determine which of the two offers the more profound explication of pessimistic humanism. Maybe I should leave it there until you’re in a position to discuss it several weeks from now. It’s an astonishing film.
There was a page on Cesar(1936).But suddenly it disappeared.Why is that?
@Malith- It’ll be back tomorrow. I switched it so 1965 comes out today and Cesar comes tomorrow. The year by year archives get way more responses and I should be available most of today to respond.
I feel like Repulsion gets overlooked on a lot of lists so it’s great to see you have it ranked so well, it’s one of the most psychologically disturbing movies I’ve ever seen, and far superior to almost every other movie whose basic premise is; a female is alone and scared. This basic premise has been used for countless movies yet this one is far better as it revolves around psychological terror rather than some bogeyman jumps out of the closet or any other movie which relies on contrived plot lines and jump scares
The ending is great, similar to the Shining with the focus on that picture which of course is open to multiple interpretations, I like that the movie doesn’t try to over explain
It’s a masterful use of the camera as the interior of the apartment is manipulated in several ways to enhance the feeling of Deneuve’s paranoia and claustrophobia as the walls in the apartment seem to be closing in on her
the entire movie revolves around the various ways Deneuve’s character feels invaded by men from something as simple as her sister’s boyfriend leaving his toothbrush in her bathroom to men harassing her in public (apparently oblivious to the fact that their invading her space)
Even as Deneuve’s character goes so far as to kill multiple people it still feels like she’s the victim
This really is a masterpiece and in my opinion right along side Rosemary’s Baby (the 2nd greatest horror movie of all time after The Shining) as an all time great Horror movie
I really liked your comment, the best camera work of the year, maybe only equaled by Juliet of the spirits, with the camera sliding and the crane shots for things as simple as climbing the stairs.
I agree with everything you said, Polanski has a real gift for paranoia
@Aldo – Thanks – agree about Polanski’s gift for paranoia
Thinking about Repulsion got me thinking about Polanski in general, he really has had one of the most fascinating life’s of any director with crazy ups and downs, personally and professionally
– His mother and other family members were killed by Nazis as they were Polish Jews during WW2
– He’s a Holocaust survivor then becomes a young hot shot director and moves to Hollywood where he makes it big with Rosemary’s Baby and a year later his wife, Sharon Tate, is murdered by the Manson family while pregnant with his child, 5 years later he releases Chinatown. Then about 4 years later flees the country to avoid rape charges and moves back to Europe where he continued to make movies.
That’s one bizarre life, very complicated as he is both a victim and accused victimizer
Nice work here, great page.
I have much less to talk about here, James Trapp came forward to highlight repulsion.
I like that you pointed to the “Czech New Wave”. Have you seen the fifth horseman is fear?
It is considered a Czech New Wave movie, do you have any other Czech New Wave movie apart from Forman?
As for Juliet of the spirits, you’re absolutely right, it’s about expectations, Fellini was afraid of following the dolce vita and surprised them, the same thing happened, they expected it to exceed or equal 8½, so that’s where the disappointment comes from.
I really like the love that Varda receives, i really like her personality, as a director and also documentaries, unfortunately Varda died in 2019.
Finally i am surprised that Deneuve in repulsion is not singled out as the absolute second best, Masina is a little, a little better, she is in the whole movie unlike the others you mention. I’ve heard people say that Deneuve can’t act, they’ve probably never seen repulsion, probably the best french actress.
@Aldo- Thank you for the kind words on the page. I have not seen “…and the Fifth Horseman Is Fear” – “Daisies” and “Closely Watched Trains” are Czech New Wave- 1966 both.
You should add it to your watch list, good movie although somewhat disappointing in my opinion. Who recommended it to me called it a masterpiece and would not call it that.
The film uses the centrifugal framing technique. If it had been used in most of the movie it would be a better movie.
I’m not sure if this is on any streaming service.
I watched Pierrot le Fou for the first time last month – talk about a film that blows your socks off haha. I sat with it for a few weeks and then returned to it a couple weeks later. Clear influences on Tarantino in Pulp Fiction, and the formal use of pop art as vessels through which the characters speak – just brilliant. A hilariously tragic ending as well, with “Pierrot” painting his face blue like a pop version of the sad clown and looking to end his life in a suitably dramatic fashion only to regret his decision a second too late. Just love it.
A recent viewing of Chimes of Midnight has solidified my initial believe that this is a special film
– Absolutely gorgeous black and white photography
– Low angle shots work perfectly here as they do for Touch of Evil (1958) in that they magnify the presence of Orson Welles’ character – as both Hank Quinlan and John Falstaff are characters whose immense physical size is essential to their character is portrayed
– The scene where Prince Hal (now Henry V) turns his back of Falstaff has to be one of the most heartbreaker scenes in any Welles film
– Absolutely brilliant set pieces – particularly the castle and of course the battle scene which has to be up there with Ran, Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, etc.
– One of the most humorous Welles films particularly when Falstaff is telling tall tales about being jumped by increasing numbers of people in the forest
– Like many of Welles films, it is metatextual (is that the right word) – Welles describes it as the betrayal of friendship – Welles felt rejected by Hollywood, stabbed in the back similar to Falstaff
– Amazing film and to be honest I generally have not been huge on Shakespeare (although I love Kurosawa’s adaptations) but this makes me open to perhaps give some other Shakespeare adaptations
From For a Few Dollars More:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuFMPI4CJTE
Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Klaus Kinski all in a Saloon at the same time!
Got me thinking what would be the coolest 3 actors in a scene together if you could take actors from different eras (laws of physics be damned)
Bogart, Nicholson, Sam Jackson
I’d sub Brad Pitt in for Samuel L. Jackson there myself.
@James Trapp- haha fun- Love both of those options how about Brando/Clift/Dean…. or Mifune/Bogart/DDL?
What about PSH, Phoenix and DDL in a PTA film?
There’s no way that would end with all three characters alive and well.
I’d throw Newman, Belmondo, and Mastroianni into the mix, though they hail from roughly the same era and thus would have to be redistributed into other groups to satisfy your question. What would you choose for actresses? I think Stanwyck, Karina, and Thurman are a suitable lineup.
Hey, what do you think of Omar sharif in doctor zhivago? I thought he was as excellent as Christie if not better .
@M*A*S*H- I do think Christie and Steiger come off looking better than Sharif.
So i saw dr. Zhivago 3 days ago, was blown by the movie and fell in love with sharif’s Zhivago. But my film buddies and you disagreed with me about him. So i did my little research on the internet and and saw people saying that he was a miscast as a Russian to his character is one of the best of all time (not the same thing about performance ).
So do you think with an another actor this character had the potential to be translated in a performance as great as peter o’Toole in lawrance of Arabia?
Would it affect the Ranking of the movie?
@M*A*S*H- I mean I don’t think he’s bad- I just think he’s much better in Lawrence actually (even if he’s not the lead). I do think it could be a slightly better film with better casting– I’m trying to think of who would have been better in 1965???
I may be wrong and time will never allow this but when i think of him in those coats de niro (the deer Hunter ) comes to my mind.
Would you give the slight edge to Karina in Pierrot Le Fou over Seberg in Breathless?
@Malith- I would. They’re almost equally brilliant films, and when you divide up the credit between the two and Belmondo I think Karina gets a large slice in Pierrot than Seberg in Breathless.
Can you even believe that Pierrot Le Fou was proposed as the French entry for the best foreign language film at the academy awards and the academy didn’t even think it was worthy to be a nominee.What a bunch of idiots the academy are.
@Malith- agreed— but on the other hand they get a lot right as well. In consecutive years they’ve given the best director Oscar to Bong, Cuaron, del Toro, Chazelle, Inarritu, Inarritu, and Cuaron again
Yeah. They did a great job from 2013-2019 with the best director prize. But Terrene Malick(Tree of Life) loosing out to Michael Hazanavicius(The Artist) is a major nitpick. Or how about Paul Thomas Anderson not getting nominated for 4 of his masterpieces(Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love and The Master).
@Malith- for sure- they get it wrong more often than not– but we’re talking about a massive group of people voting, many of them are not dedicated cinephiles
The 1964 isn’t working for me. I see one picture at the top, but no text and no opportunity to comment.
Has anyone seen this film?
A Fugitive from the Past, directed by Tomu Uchida
https://letterboxd.com/film/a-fugitive-from-the-past/
@James Trapp – I have not here. No reviews on Rotten Tomatoes either- which is rare.
@Drake – yeah I noticed this on an upcoming release from Arrow Video:
https://www.arrowvideo.com/blu-ray/a-fugitive-from-the-past/13897263.html
Kinema Junpo, apparently Japan’s oldest film magazine ranked it very highly in their list of Top 100 Japanese Films of the 20th Century (1995)
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls054865281/
@Drake – yeah it seems to be quite obscure, I noticed this on an upcoming release from Arrow Video. I have ordered several asian films from Arrow that I could not find anywhere else. So I looked into it and Kinema Junpo, apparently Japan’s oldest film magazine ranked it 6th on their list of Top 100 Japanese Films of the 20th Century (1995)
@James Trapp- very interesting- keep me posted
@Drake – will do, i pre-ordered should have it in a couple of weeks
Has anybody seen Sergei Bondarchuk’s War and Peace, and what are your thoughts on it?
@RujK- I have not, had it in the criterion streaming queue for awhile- I just need to make time.
What is the word limit for comments, because I have some trouble posting here?
@RujK- Sorry to hear you’re having trouble posting. I do not know the world limit. I’ve seen some large posts before though
@Drake- I have finally seen War and Peace and I wrote a review that I am unable to post, so for now this will do:
Part I: MS/MP
Part II: MS
Part III: MP
Part IV: MP
Together they are an unchangeable masterpiece
@RujK- Thank you for sharing. 7 hours? 8? Congrats on crossing this one off the list.
(My pretty messy review of one of the best films I have ever seen in quite a while) I have finally seen War and Peace and I am not really sure it is not the best film of 1965. A truly transcendent experience of unmatched epicness (including Lawrence of Arabia). Sergey Bondarchuk throws everything at the wall (stylistically) and the crazy thing is that almost everything also sticks. The film is 7 hours long and it needed 5 years to complete. The four episodes are great on its own, but they are sublime when considered a part of the bigger whole.
PART I: This is the longest episode and it sets the world and the characters perfectly. At the start it focuses mostly on peace (the Moscow bourgeoise), and it is something like The Leopard meets Parajanov. On the mise-en-scene level this one might be the finest of the four, and the wild editing and camera movements pleasantly caught me off guard. The Battle of Austerlitz is one of the best warfare set-pieces I have ever seen, and it is insane it is only the second best set-piece in the film.
My favorite shot: there is a great magic hour while generals are spectating the battlefield, and another with Napoleon looking down at Bolonsky, but ultimately the answer is the most epic shot of the entire film- the rising camera revealing the entire scale of the battlefield after the “death“ of Andrei Bolonsky.
MS/MP (the narration at the start is very confusing and it is fully resolved only in later films- there are all three main characters speaking, some minor one and even an omniscient narrator- it`s a lot to take in)
PART II: easily the worst of the four and still incredible. The ball sequence at the beginning is breathtaking (the camera is Ophüls and the editing is tamer Eisenstein). This episode works the best as an enrichment factor for the characters and it very nicely constructs all the love triangles that get their full payoffs in later parts.
My favorite shot: it is any of the long takes before or in the middle of the ball
MS (the least stylistically ambitious and impactful in the narrative sense)
PART III: the shortest and the best one. The start is slow and methodical, but the second half is pure controlled chaos. The Battle of Borodino is the single best warfare set-piece of all time (in my opinion), it dwarfs every other battle scene and it was completely worthy of the 2 years it was in the making (and the two heart attacks Bondarchuk suffered because of it).
My favorite shot: there is a ton of impressive wide shots of the kilometers of armies, but I can go only with the camera on a zipline flying over the parameter of the battlefield.
MP (pretty flawless)
PART IV: The most depressing, bleak, haunting and sorrow of the four. Everything concerning the burning Moscow is simply majestic and at the same stress inducing. The march in the snow once again exposes us to the vast armies of the third part. The episode is maybe also the most stylistically ambitious: there is a surreal dream-death sequence, slow motion, black/white cinematography, editing collages, freeze frames (this a dedication throughout the entire film)…
My favorite shot: there is a great shot by a flying camera over the slowly deteriorating army in the snow, but my favorite is the slow-mo execution by firing squad.
MP (but not on the same level as part 3)
Together they are a pretty unchangeable masterpiece of stylistic and formal tour-de-force. The film is improves even more by the three excellent lead (one of them Bondarchuk himself) and one of the grandest score I have ever heard (my house was trembling).
One of the finest films of 1960s.